The Front Line in the Culture War

The names of Chris Kempling, Scott Brockie, and Ĺke Green are not well known in most circles within our country, but they should be. Our opinion of these cases could determine whether they simply represent other nations’ current states of affairs or perhaps America’s future.

For example, can a Christian schoolteacher write a letter to the editor and express his belief that homosexuality or homosexual marriage is wrong and still keep his job? If so, in which countries? The answer might surprise you.

In 1996, the registrar for the British Columbia College of Teachers, Doug Smart, is reported to have said, “We intend to arrange it so that no teacher will dare to write any letter to the editor critical of homosexuality, and will not even raise their voice on this issue on any public street corner.”

Chris Kempling is a schoolteacher and counselor in the town of Quesnel, British Columbia in Canada. He is also a Christian with traditional conservative beliefs. The conflict between these two with respect to Canadian law and policy has become apparent in recent years, and it might now be argued that this conflict between teaching in Canada’s school system and being a conservative Christian is at times an irreconcilable conflict.

Between April 1997 and July 2000, Kempling wrote six letters to the editor of his local newspaper, the Quesnal Cariboo Observer. He also wrote one freelance column. These letters stated, in a matter-of-fact style, why Kempling believed that homosexuality was wrong and why he believed that the Canadian government should not legalize homosexual marriage. These letters resulted in Kempling being cited on May 8, 2001 with conduct unbecoming a teacher. On May 9, 2002 he was suspended by the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT), for one month without pay, and declared guilty of “professional misconduct”.

Kempling took the suspension to court. His appeal was eventually heard by the British Columbia Supreme Court in July, 2003.

On February 3, 2004, Justice Ronald Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BCCT, saying that Mr. Kempling’s letters were “discriminatory” and “ could reasonably cause disruption to the school system.” Apparently the most “extreme” of Mr. Kempling’s statements were those listed below, cited by Justice Holmes. It would seem that it is no longer permissible for Canadian schoolteachers to make statements such as these cited by Holmes either on OR OFF the job:

“Thus my main concern with giving same sex couples legal rights in child custody issues is due to the obvious instability and short term nature of gay relationships....My second concern is how can children develop a concept of normal sexuality, when their prime care-givers have rejected the other gender entirely?” (Quesnel Cariboo Observer. July 27, 1997)

“Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes, but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long lasting relationships and to combat sexual addictions.” (Quesnel Cariboo Observer. August 10, 1997)

“The majority of religions consider (homosexual) behaviour to be immoral, and many mental health professionals, including myself, believe homosexuality to be the result of abnormal psycho-social influences....Homosexuality is not something to be applauded.” (Quesnel Cariboo Observer. July 1, 2000)

“I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural diversity' of which we should be proud.” (Quesnel Cariboo Observer. July 19, 2000)

Kempling’s expressing of his views–even though it was outside of school hours--was deemed by the BCCT to be “conduct unbecoming of a teacher”. They ruled that Kempling’s statements “undermined the core value of non-discrimination by denying homosexual students an education environment accepting of them.” (One has to wonder what kind of environment has been created for Christian teachers who are opposed to homosexuality and who wish to express their beliefs outside of school hours.)

This was not to be the last time that Kempling would be disciplined. He was disciplined in February of 2003 for broaching the subject of homosexuality in a mandatory class on human sexuality and the prevention of sexuality transmitted diseases. He was disciplined by the Quesnel School District again on May 21, 2003 for an earlier interview in January by a CBC news crew who were making a documentary about his case. He was at this time instructed not to publish his views about homosexuality anywhere, nor to write any more letters to the editor of the local paper. His supervisor, Randy Curr, also said this:

“Your continued public expression of your personal views on homosexuality is incompatible with your role as a teacher and counsellor in the public school system....In (the) future, you must adhere to the May 21st, 2003 directive. Any failure to do so will result in further and more severe discipline, up to and including dismissal.”

He was also later disciplined for a telephone interview with CBC conducted in December of 2003 and aired January 5, 2004. The interview was conducted on his own time while Kempling was at home on Christmas vacation, and was about Kempling’s private practice as a Christian counselor. Kempling attempted to appeal this action before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, but his request to present his case was denied in November of 2005 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had this to say:

“By virtue of his status as a teacher and counsellor employed by the District, Dr. Kempling must accept and abide by some reasonable limits on the public expression of his views on homosexuality.”

In quoting another decision (Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15), the Tribunal said:

“It is on the basis of the position of trust and influence that we hold the teacher to high standards both on and off duty...”

Meanwhile, on April 4, 2005, Kempling faced continued difficulties as he was suspended for three months without pay by the Quesnel School District Superintendent, Ed Napier, for writing a letter on January 12th of that year to the editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer concerning the Christian Heritage Party and its opposition to governmental efforts to legalize homosexual marriage. He has since served that suspension–driving a dump truck during the summer to help with finances.

In June of 2005, Kempling was summoned to testify before a committee of the Canadian Parliament which was considering bill C-38 dealing with the subject of homosexual marriage. After appearing, as requested, before Parliament, Kempling incredibly was presented with another disciplinary letter by the Quesnel School District for doing so. (They eventually backed down on this occasion because of complaints by members of Parliament over concerns about their attempting to intimidate a witness of Parliament.)

On January 28, 2008, Kempling was once again cited with “conduct unbecoming a teacher” for offenses (occurring between February 2003 and April 2005) including writing scholarly articles on the subject of homosexuality, giving interviews to the CBC about his private practice as a Christian counselor, being a representative of the Christian Heritage Party, and writing an article for the Calgary Herald in which he spoke about philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives. The hearings will be in September of this year and could result in dismissal.

Meanwhile, Kempling had appealed the original case regarding the letters to the editor with the one month suspension to the British Columbia Court of Appeals (the second highest level of court in Canada), and the case was heard in April of 2005. On June 13, 2005, the Court of Appeals ruled against Kempling. On January 29, 2006, this original case for “conduct unbecoming of a teacher” came to a conclusion when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Kempling’s appeal.

Kempling’s case called into question whether a schoolteacher who is also a conservative Christian can exercise his faith outside of work hours in simple actions such as a letter to the editor. After numerous appeals the question has been definitively answered by the Canadian judicial system, and the answer is “no”.

Remember the words of Doug Smart? “We intend to arrange it so that no teacher will dare to write any letter to the editor critical of homosexuality, and will not even raise their voice on this issue on any public street corner.”

The incredible deed was done.

The case of Chris Kempling, however, is not as isolated as one might think.

Scott Brockie

Scott Brockie is a printer in Toronto, Canada. In 1996 he refused to print letterhead stationery for Ray Brillinger, who was representing the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Although Brockie has provided printing services for homosexual individuals and homosexual-owned businesses, he refused, in accord with his religious beliefs, to provide printing for organizations that promote homosexual activity. Mr. Brockie said the following: “We do work for clients who are gay. We’ve had staff who were gay. I don’t have problem with people who are gay. However I don’t think I have to support that cause. If Mr. Brillinger had asked me to print personal business cards, I would have. We must promote the family, but we must not hate those who are gay.”

A complaint was filed against Scott Brockie. This complaint was investigated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was headed by Keith Norton, who is openly homosexual. The complaint against Brockie was supported by the Commission and in 1999 was referred to a Board of Inquiry. On February 24th, 2000 Scott Brockie was fined $5000 and ordered to provide printing services in the future for any homosexual organizations that requested it. On June 17th, 2002, the Ontario Divisional Court refined the ruling and decided that Brockie does not have to print anything that any homosexual organization requests of him if it conflicts with the “core beliefs” of his religion. However, it held that he still had to print Mr. Brillinger’s material, because, in the opinion of the court, it did not conflict with Mr. Brockie’s core beliefs. In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal also assessed him $40,000 in court costs. His legal costs, as of August 2004, had exceeded $170,000.

The adjudicator of the decision by the Board of Inquiry was Heather MacNaughton. She said, “I have concluded that it is necessary to limit Brockie’s freedom of religion...The infringement of the rights of Brockie is warranted in our Canadian society.” She further stated, “...nothing in my order will prevent Brockie from continuing to hold and practice his religious beliefs. Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practice them in his home, and in his Christian community...” It is clear from the ruling, however, that Brockie is not free to practice his beliefs in Canadian society at large.

Hugh Owens

In 1997, Gay Pride celebrations were planned for Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Advertisements for the events were published. Hugh Owens, a guard at a correctional facility, came across one of the advertisements. His response was to take out an ad on June 30 in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. The ad consisted of just the citations, not the texts, for four Bible passages accompanied by an “=” sign in the middle and a picture on the right of two stick figures of men holding hands with a slashed circle superimposed over them. (In other words, these Bible verses teach that homosexuality is wrong.) In small print at the bottom, it had a phone number for those who wished to purchase the message in bumper sticker form. (Owens had also printed bumper stickers with the same message.)

Because of complaints from members of the homosexual community, the newspaper quit publishing Owens’ ads. Since the homosexual community could still get their message out, but Owens could not, Owens complained to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. In the meantime homosexual activists were filing complaints to the same Commission against Owens, contending that the message affronted their dignity and restricted the enjoyment of their rights. The Commission decided to drop Owens’ complaint and pursue the complaint filed by those who objected to his message.

In July of 1999, Owens attempted to place a similar ad in the Regina Leader Post. In this case, the stick figures were replaced with the message “God Says No to Homosexuality”. The Leader Post initially refused to publish the ads, but eventually opted to print the Bible citations only, without any commentary. Human rights complaints were quickly filed against Owens and also against the Regina Leader Post. The Human Rights Commission investigated, but declined to bring charges–opting instead to pursue action against Owens’ ads and bumper stickers in Saskatoon. A tribunal was convened in August 1999. On June 15, 2001, the Human Rights Commission ruled against Owens and the Star-Phoenix, stating that “the advertisement would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule, or may otherwise affront their dignity...”. The commission directed both Owens and the Star-Phoenix to pay $1500 to three homosexual activists who had filed complaints, and directed the Star-Phoenix to not accept that ad in the future and also directed Owens not to publish the ad in any other medium in the future. The case was appealed, and, on December 11, 2002, the Court of Queen’s Bench also ruled against Owens and the newspaper.

The case was again appealed by Owens. On April 13, 2006, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the rulings of the lower courts and decided in favor of Owens.

The ultimate disposition of the case is, at this point, uncertain. Also uncertain is the amount of legal fees to be incurred by Owens. All this is due to his “criminal” action in daring to place citations for four verses of the Bible on a bumper sticker and in a classified ad in a local paper.

Surrey School District

The ongoing controversies in Canada have not been limited to individuals, but have included organizations as well. In late 1996, in Surrey, British Columbia, a teacher by the name of James Chamberlain petitioned the Surrey School Board to include books espousing homosexual relationships in his kindergarten and first grade classes. The Books were One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads; Belinda’s Bouquet; and Asha’s Mums. In April, 1997 the Surrey District School Board denied Chamberlain’s request for the use of the books. The confrontation ended up in court.

In December of 1998, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Chamberlain, stating that “members of the Board who had voted in favour of the resolution were significantly influenced by religious considerations.” After that ruling was overturned on September 20, 2000 by the British Columbia Court of Appeals, the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. On December 20, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Chamberlain and against the Surrey School Board stating that the “School Board's decision was unreasonable in the context of the educational scheme laid down by the legislature.”

The cost to the taxpayers of Surrey was more than 1.2 million dollars. The result is that the advocacy of the homosexual agenda to children as young as kindergarten age–kindergarten age!-- is now supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

(Note: In June of 2003, the Surrey School District once again rejected–for grammatical and other reasons--the three books for classroom use. However, they substituted two other books on homosexual relationships. Mr. Chamberlain approved of the two new books. They are entitled Who’s in a Family? and A Family Alphabet Book.)

In a related matter, in 2006 the province of British Columbia settled a pending case before the Human Rights Tribunal. The settlement stipulated that the province would work in consulation with a particular homosexual couple, Peter and Murray Coren, to select classroom materials and to make sure that all courses of study within the province are acceptable to the homosexual community.

Dagmar and Arnost Cepica

Dagmar and Arnost Cepica were owners of the Beach View Bed and Breakfast, which was part of their home in Stratford, Prince Edward Island, Canada. In the summer of 2000, they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple. The homosexual couple filed a complaint with the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission. The Cepicas did not have the monetary resources to fight the issue in court. (Remember the $170,000 plus expended by Scott Brockie, the $1.2 million by the Surrey School District, the yet unknown amounts by Chris Kempling and others.) A settlement was reached on May 22, 2001 whereby the Cepicas would pay a $1000 fine to the two men. In order to be allowed to continue to operate their bed and breakfast, they would have to consent to attending a pro-homosexual seminar and agree to rent to homosexuals in the future. Opting not to violate their faith, they decided to cease the operation of their bed and breakfast rather than submit to the dictates of the Human Rights Act and its directives regarding sexual orientation.

Bill Whatcott

Most of the people mentioned in this document are primarily ordinary people who were leading ordinary lives, but whose crime was speaking out against the homosexual agenda. Most were not, in the beginning, anti-homosexual agenda activists. An exception to this would be Bill Whatcott. Whatcott is what one might call both an anti-abortion and anti-homosexual agenda crusader. He is the head of a group called “Christian Truth Activists”. He is also a former homosexual, which undoubtedly especially rankles some of those whom he opposes. One of his most notable actions regarding the homosexual agenda was on June 22, 2002, when he led the Gay Pride parade in Regina, Saskatchewan. Neither he nor his sign, complete with message opposing the homosexual agenda, had been invited to participate (nor were especially welcomed by the other participants). Lead the parade he did, nonetheless. He also, in the wake of homosexual activists’ efforts to have Gay Pride Days established, exploited a loophole in the city by-laws and successfully petitioned Regina, Saskatchewan to proclaim a Heterosexual Family Pride Day for June 18, 2001.

In late 2001 and early 2002, Whatcott distributed leaflets that opposed the homosexual lifestyle in Regina and Saskatoon. In May of 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Whatcott $17,500 for distributing those leaflets and ordered him to stop distributing them. The fines were to be awarded to four complainants and were for “hurt feelings and loss of dignity and self-respect.” The Tribunal stated that “preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression...” Whatcott responded by proclaiming that he would refuse to obey the order, and that his entire net worth is less than $17,500. Whatcott appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, but the court gave notice in December of 2006 that it would not consider the case. Whatcott has continued to distribute similar literature. The final outcome is still unresolved, with jail being a distinct possibility.

In October of 2004, the University of Regina held a symposium entitled I Could Not Speak My Heart: Education and Social Justice for Gay and Lesbian Youth. In an advertisement for the symposium on the school’s website, they declared that Whatcott advocated that all homosexuals should be killed. This was blatantly untrue, and Whatcott complained to the school. The university has since issued a written statement of regret, but made no public apology. University lawyers have agreed to an undisclosed cash settlement with Whatcott, who will use the money to defray a portion of his legal fees and fines (which, by early 2006, had already approached $200,000).

Whatcott has been arrested, according to one source, at least 26 times in Canada and once in the United States, primarily for picketing outside of abortion clinics. He has been convicted twice–on one occasion serving six months in jail. In addition, Whatcott, who makes his living as a licensed practical nurse, was (on November 16, 2004) declared guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses. He subsequently had his nursing license suspended for 45 days and fined $15,000 by the nursing association. He has since been suspended indefinitely. He has also been fined by his union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Stephen Boissoin

Stephen Boissoin was a youth minister in Red Deer, Alberta. He was visiting the website of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in search of funding opportunities when he noticed that one of the groups funded through taxpayer money was the PFLAG Faith Society, whose agenda involved teaching that homosexuality was “Normal, Necessary, Acceptable, and Productive.” Boissoin responded by writing a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, an Alberta newspaper. The letter was published on June 17, 2002, and in it he criticized the homosexual lifestyle as immoral and pointed out that five and six year old children are currently being indoctrinated in Canada’s public schools with pro-homosexual literature and presentations. A copy of the letter can be viewed here.

Darren Lund, a teacher at the University of Calgary, read Boissoin’s letter and submitted a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Commission agreed to hear the complaint. Without the finances to hire an attorney to defend himself, Boissoin was initially relegated to preparing for his own defense in his spare time. Facing the prospect of $10,000 in fines (including payments to Lund and to a homosexual advocacy group), Boissoin has stated that he will ask to have the money diverted to other related causes instead, such as a HIV hospice; but, if that is not allowed, he will choose prison instead. Lund has also asked the Commission to demand a public apology from Boissoin and to prohibit him from expressing his views concerning homosexuality in the future in any major print media in Alberta. Ironically, many of the youth that Boissoin ministers to are homosexual, and they have been among his staunchest defenders, telling of Boissoin’s devotion to all youths in his area, including homosexuals–treating them like family.

Facing outside pressure, the Red Deer Advocate has since changed its letters policy, and will no longer accept letters similar to that written by Boissoin.

Boissoin’s case was heard before the Alberta Human Rights Commission on July 16-18, 2007. On November 30, the Commission issued its ruling: Stephen Boissoin was found to be in violation of Canadian law. The decision on the penalty was handed down on May 30, 2008. Boissoin was fined $7,000. He is required to give a public apology. And the Tribunal also includes, among other things, this:

The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows: a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

That's a lifetime ban; and it even includes e-mail.

Boissoin's response on his website, dated June 8, 2008:

I will never apologize regardless of the consequences and I will not pay fines unless failing to do so prevents my ability to appeal.......I stand by what I said and how I said it. I stand by MY context and interpretation of it.

I publicly declare that I do not hate homosexuals and further declare that I love God and regardless how I too stumble through this life, I believe that His teachings are true, relevant and worthy of proclamation, again, regardless of the consequences.

Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic High School

In 2002, the Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic High School in Oshawa, Ontario, informed one of its students, Marc Hall, that he could not bring a same-sex date to the school prom, since living a homosexual lifestyle was contrary to church teaching. On May 10, 2002, Robert McKinnon, a justice for the Ontario Superior Court issued an injunction requiring the Catholic School to allow the student to bring a same-sex date and forbidding the school district from cancelling the prom. He stated that not allowing Hall to attend the prom “constitutes a serious and irreparable injury to Mr. Hall as well as a serious affront to his dignity.” The court case cost the school district more than $150,000 in legal fees prior to Justice McKinnon’s initial decision and has cost much more since then. (Hall also filed a $100,000 lawsuit against the school board, but has since dropped the case.) The end result is that religious schools are not allowed to compel its students to adhere to the group’s religious views and values within its own school.

John DeCicco

John DeCicco is a city councillor in Kamloops, British Columbia. In June of 2006, the question of the city allowing a gay pride parade and proclaiming a gay pride week was raised. DeCicco opposed it. He said that homosexual acts were ''not normal and not natural''. As a result, his barbershop was vandalized. Someone wrote ''Homophobia Die'' on the barbershop door. Two homosexual activists also filed a complaint against him with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. The complaint was accepted by the Commission. In order to avoid a hearing before the Tribunal (and, by now, perhaps you know how those typically turn out), DeCicco settled ahead of time. The settlement included a formal apology and a payment of $1000 to the homosexual couple.

Knights of Columbus–Port Coquitlam

The Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia have a meeting hall that they rent out on occasion for various events, including weddings. They did not think that anything was unusual when someone called in 2003 to reserve it for a wedding. Only later did they find that it was to be for a wedding between two women. The Knights of Columbus, upon finding out this information, informed the couple that this would not be permissible due to Roman Catholic teachings concerning homosexual relationships. (The Knights of Columbus is a Roman Catholic organization.) The booking agent for the KOC apologized, and the KOC refunded their deposit, and later paid $444.59 for wedding invitations that had been printed, postage incurred, plus the increased cost of another rental facility. The couple was able to locate another hall the morning after they were informed by the KOC that the hall could not be used. (The hall was actually being rented for a reception for the wedding, not the wedding itself, although the KOC was not aware of this at the time. It would not have made a difference in their policy.)

The couple filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded the couple $2000 ($1000 each) from the Knights of Columbus. (The justice who chaired the Tribunal, Heather MacNaughton, is the same justice who had previously denied an appeal by Chris Kempling and who levied fines against Scott Brockie and ordered Brockie to provide printing services for a homosexual organization.)

According to LifeSiteNews, an interesting twist to the story has also emerged. The couple had claimed that they didn’t know that KOC was a Roman Catholic organization, and had only come across it through driving around and looking. However, the notice of its availability for renting is an 8 ˝" X 11" sheet of paper on the door of the facility that cannot be read from the road. The notice is located beneath a KOC coat of arms. In addition, the building is located immediately adjacent to a Roman Catholic church building that is made of the same material and painted in the same colors. The couple arranged to look at the inside of the facility before renting it. The interior of the hall prominently displays a picture of the Pope along with a large crucifix and various Roman Catholic news items on the bulletin board. More telling, one of the women worked at a CostCo warehouse with David Hauser, who was the booking agent for the KOC. Many members of management at the CostCo were allegedly openly homosexual. Both the co-worker who was to be part of the wedding and members of management had asked Hauser about the hall and his role in booking it. One day, while Hauser was at work and his wife was doing the bookings, the couple called Hauser’s wife and reserved the hall. They merely said that is was for a wedding and gave no further information about the nature of the wedding. Since many people were employed at the CostCo warehouse, and Hauser only knew the co-worker by her first name, he thought nothing about the reservation, not knowing that she was the one doing the booking.

The day after the two women were told that they could not rent the hall, Hauser’s openly homosexual supervisor ordered Hauser to re-book the hall for the couple. Hauser refused. Over the next year, Hauser reportedly experienced continual harassment at work from his co-workers and managers. In June of 2004, he was given a 90-day suspension. The suspension was overruled by CostCo regional office. In November of 2004, Hauser was fired by the same openly homosexual boss who had ordered him to re-book the hall. His boss is reported to have been demoted two weeks later–but too late for Hauser.

All of the cases mentioned thus far are from Canada. However, Canada is far from the only country in which similar cases are found.

Ĺke Green

Perhaps the most famous case of its kind involved a Swedish Pentecostal preacher by the name of Ĺke Green. Ĺke Green preached in the village of Borgholm, which is located on Oland Island in Sweden. In June of 2003, he preached a sermon in which he outlined some of the Biblical arguments against homosexuality. He also published it in the local newspaper. Because of this, Green was arrested for hate crimes. On June 29, 2004, he was sentenced to one month in prison, but remained free on appeal.

Green appealed the conviction, and the appeal was heard on January 20, 2005 by the Gota Court of Appeals. The conviction was overturned on February 11, 2005. The prosecutor then appealed to Sweden’s Supreme Court, where he asked for a sentence of six months for Green. The case was heard on November 9th. On November 29, 2005 Sweden’s Supreme Court upheld Green’s acquittal by the Court of Appeals. The case had received a large amount of publicity, and conservatives from around the world criticized the prosecution of Green intensely. One has to wonder if the ultimate outcome of the proceedings was influenced by the conservative uproar surrounding it, and what the outcome might have been otherwise.

Here are Green’s comments made to the congregation immediately after the sermon in question in June of 2003.

And remember that he was on trial for hate crimes.

We must never think that some people, because of their sinful lives, would end up outside of grace. Paul says about himself that he was the foremost of all sinners, but he encountered an abundance of grace and mercy. He also states in First Corinthians 6:9-11, when he lists sexual immorality with other sins, that you can be saved from all the listed sins, including sexual immorality. What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. It is valid also for them. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people -- Jesus never did that either. He showed everyone He met deep respect for the person they were, for instance the adulterous woman, in John 8, or the woman at the well in Sychar, according to John 4. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace. We must never belittle anyone who lives in sin. The sin we cannot bear -- but the human being [we must hold up]. Surely we still believe it is as Paul says in the Letter to Titus [2: 11-12]. Listen:

''For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.''

It is by showing all people grace and mercy that we can win them for Christ. We never win anyone by giving them the cold shoulder.

Yet, in spite of this, Green had to take his legal fight all the way to Supreme Court of Sweden to be cleared of hate crime charges that could have resulted in one month or even six months in jail.

Christian Vanneste

In December of 2004, France passed legislation outlawing insults deemed to be “hate speech” against homosexuals. In the debate on that law, Christian Vanneste, a member of France’s Parliament, in his arguments against the law, said, “This will bolster the notion that homosexual behaviour has the same value as any other kind of behaviour, when, in fact, it is obvious that it is a threat to the survival of humanity.”

Vanneste’s statement resulted in his being prosecuted under the new hate crimes law. His case was decided in January of 2006, and Vanneste was pronounced guilty. He was forced to pay a total of 9000 Euros. This included 2000 Euros to each of three homosexual complainant groups plus an additional 3000 Euros in fines.

Seeing what is happening in other countries, one can breathe easier knowing that we live in America, and that we have a different culture, and that these things could never happen here. Or could they?

Matt Barber

Matt Barber was an employee with Allstate Insurance Company in Northbrook, Illinois. In December of 2004, Barber wrote an article for an online news source. The article was entitled “‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated! The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values”. In this article Barber expressed his conservative Christian views that same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle were wrong. The article was picked up by several online news sources and blogs. At these sites, Barber’s name was attached to the article, but his affiliation with Allstate was not. The exception to this was the website MensNewsDaily.com, a pro-homosexual site, which included Barber’s affiliation with Allstate with the article but without his approval.

The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual group based in Washington, D.C., notified Allstate about the article and asked for an explanation. On January 31, 2005, Barber was called to a meeting with company officials. He was presented with a copy of the article and asked if he had written it. He said that he did, but said that he had written it on his own time, at home, and on his own equipment. He was told that Allstate did not share his views and did not want to be associated with them. He was immediately suspended for two days and escorted off the premises. Three days later he was fired.

Allstate has been one of the business community’s most prominent supporters of homosexual causes. Diversity, Inc. ranked it in the top ten companies in the country for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees”. It offers domestic partnership benefits and requires diversity training. It has contributed significant amounts to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Gay and Lesbian Center in Los Angeles, the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, and to the Indiana University Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Support Services.

Allstate later said that Barber was not fired for writing the article, but for using company resources on company time. Barber contended otherwise. Allstate also made the argument to the Department of Employment Security of the State of Illinois that Barber should not be granted unemployment benefits. The department conducted an investigation and concluded that Barber’s version of events was the correct one, and that he was terminated because an outside organization had complained about the article. They also concluded that he had written the article on his own time, and that he was not guilty of any misconduct. Furthermore, Barber contends that Allstate’s policy is to issue a warning for a first offence, not to terminate the employee.

One has to wonder if the same result would have occurred if Barber was an advocate for homosexual causes and was writing a pro-homosexual article.

Due to his termination, Barber lost his health insurance (two weeks after his wife gave birth by Caesarean section and was still recovering) and had to place his house on the market.

Barber has since filed suit (on May 26, 2005) against Allstate for their actions. That lawsuit has since been settled out of court.

David and Tonia Parker

David and Tonia Parker live in Lexington, Massachusetts. They were upset when their son, who is only in kindergarten, came home with a “Diversity Book Bag”. One of the books was entitled Who’s In the Family? The book advocates the acceptance of homosexual marriage. (It is one of the books that was eventually approved for the previously mentioned Surrey School District in British Columbia.) Homosexual parents were also invited to the Lexington school to present pro-homosexual materials. During communications with the school to discuss the issue, the Parkers asked if their kindergarten age son could opt out of any future programs discussing homosexuality. The school refused, and said that the material would be required. During a subsequent arranged meeting between David Parker and school officials, the officials continued to maintain their hard-line position. When Mr. Parker refused to conclude the discussions in a timely manner, insisting that school officials needed to give him prior notice of any such events, he was arrested for trespassing and spent the night in jail. He is no longer allowed on school grounds, either to meet with school officials, or to pick up his child, or even to vote (since the school building is the local voting site).

The precedent set by the Surrey, British Columbia case–i.e., the indoctrination of public school children as young as kindergarten age with the homosexual agenda–has now arrived in the United States.

[In a related item, prominent candidates for President of the United States in this year’s election, including John Edwards and Barack Obama, have publicly expressed their support for the use of homosexual literature such as King and King in second grade classes.]

Jihad Daniel

Jihad Daniel was a 63-year-old employee and student at William Paterson University in New Jersey. In March of 2005 Arlene Scala, one of the professors in the Women’s Studies Department, sent a mass e-mail to advertise a documentary entitled “Ruth and Connie: Every Room in the House”. The documentary was about a lesbian couple. The e-mail included a section inviting responses. Daniel responded with this e-mail:

“Do not send me any mail about ‘Connie and Sally’ and ‘Adam and Steve.’ These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned.”

Professor Scala contacted the Office of Employment Equity and Diversity and said that the e-mail “...to me sounds threatening and in violation of our university's non-discrimination policy.” The university did indeed take issue with the word “perversions” and said that it violated New Jersey’s non-discrimination policy. In June of 2005, University officials put a letter of reprimand in Daniel’s personal file for discrimination and sexual harassment. He was also informed that formal charges would be filed. Daniel appealed the decision. The organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote to New Jersey’s Attorney General on behalf of Daniel. The Attorney General, Peter Harvey, sided with the University. A hearing was held on November 16, and Daniel was found not guilty. The university subsequently removed the letter of reprimand from Daniel’s file.

Although eventually exhonerated. Daniel had been forced to defend himself because of his traditional, socially conservative response to an unsolicited e-mail from a university official–an e-mail that invited responses.

Michael Hartman

Michael Hartman had worked with the Red Cross in a volunteer capacity for more than 30 years. He became an employee in 2004. In May of 2005, he received a mass e-mail originating from the Chief Diversity Officer of the Red Cross informing employees that June was Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and that the employees were encouraged to celebrate gay and lesbian achievements. Hartman responded by sending an e-mail to management stating that, as a Christian, he could not in good conscience promote the agenda of the homosexual community. He was quickly summoned to a regional office and reprimanded. After reiterating his convictions in a second e-mail, he was fired.

Tim Bono

Tim Bono operates Bono Film and Video in Arlington, Virginia. In May of 2005, he was asked by homosexual activist Lilli Vincenz to copy two video documentaries which were entitled “Second Largest Minority” and “Gay and Proud”. Since the videos were obviously advocating the homosexual agenda, Mr. Bono refused to copy the videos for both business and ethical reasons. Vincenz appealed to the Arlington Human Rights Commission in an attempt to force Bono to copy the videos. The AHRC on April 18, 2006 ordered Bono to either copy the two videos or to pay for their being copied elsewhere. Bono refused. (Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Does anyone remember Scott Brockie, the printer in Toronto, Canada? The parallels are interesting, to say the least.) The Commission reversed its decision only after a lawsuit was filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Bono Film and Video.

Elaine Huguenin

On September 21, 2006, a homosexual couple contacted Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography via e-mail to see if they could arrange for photography for their “commitment ceremony”. Elaine responded saying that she photographed traditional weddings but did not photograph same-sex weddings. On December 20, 2006, one member of the homosexual couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. A trial was held in January of 2008, and on April 9th the Human Rights Commission ruled that Elaine Huguenin violated the New Mexico Human Rights Acts by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They fined Mrs. Huguenin $6,637.94.

Members of Repent America

On October 10, 2004, the city of Philadelphia hosted “Outfest”, a homosexual pride event. The event is an annual event that is not only hosted but funded by the city of Philadelphia. (The organizational host of Outfest, Philly Pride Presents, receives $22,500 annually from the city of Philadelphia.) At this event eleven members of the Philadelphia-based group “Repent America” lawfully protested on the public sidewalks, reading Scripture and distributing leaflets. The eleven consisted of six men and five women and ranged in age from 17 to 72.

A homosexual group known as the “Pink Angels” physically blocked their access until police arrived and escorted the eleven down the public sidewalk. After this, members of the Pink Angels walked alongside the group, blowing whistles, shouting obscenities, and physically harassing the eleven.

Although the eleven followed all laws, and although the Pink Angels did not, the eleven were suddenly arrested by police, and escorted to jail, where they spent the night. They were charged with five misdemeanors (possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and obstructing highways ) and three felonies (criminal conspiracy, riot, and ethnic intimidation). The charges could have resulted in up to 47 years in prison.

An appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the case was denied. Videos of the event favored the eleven, however, and in February 2005 the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissed the charges. Their peaceful protest, however, has resulted in time-consuming court appeals, legal expenses, a night in jail, and the threat of 47 years in prison.

Boy Scouts of America

Few organizations in the United States have been as identified with the Heartland values of small town America as the Boy Scouts. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the current attacks on moral standards would also target the Boy Scouts. Booed at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the Boy Scouts have also been attacked in other ways because of their stand on homosexuality.

In 1998 the city of Berkeley, California began to charge the Berkeley Sea Scouts, a branch of the Boy Scouts, fees to use its marina because of the Scouts’ policy of excluding homosexuals and atheists. This reversed a long-standing city policy (in effect since the 1930's) of providing the Boy Scouts with free berthing at the marina. Berkeley does not charge other non-profit groups. In March 2006, the Supreme Court of California upheld Berkeley’s right to levy these fees. The Scouts are currently being charged $500 per month for berthing one boat. (They gave up berthing places for two other boats due to the new fees.)

The ACLU has filed at least fourteen lawsuits against the Boy Scouts in recent years. In August of 2000, the ACLU filed suit against the Boy Scouts Desert-Pacific Council and the city of San Diego because of leases that the Boy Scouts had at Balboa Park and at Fiesta Island. (The lawsuits were filed on behalf of two people: one a homosexual and the other an atheist.) The Boy Scouts had begun using Balboa Park in 1920. In 1957 they signed a fifty-year lease with the city for use an eighteen-acre site within the Park. (In 2001, the lease was extended for an additional 25 years, with the stipulation that the boy Scouts spend $1.7 million for improvements in the Park.) In 1987 they signed a 25-year lease for a half-acre on Fiesta Island. On July 31, 2003, Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Balboa Park lease was illegal. In January of 2004, the city of San Diego agreed to a settlement in which they would pay $950,000 to the ACLU in legal costs and ask a judge to void the Balboa Park lease. The lease on Fiesta Island has also not been renewed. (The Boy Scouts have already spent over $2,000,000 at that site to build an aquatic center.)

It has not just been ACLU lawsuits, but threats of ACLU lawsuits as well that have affected the Boy Scouts. In February of 2005, the ACLU sent a letter to the Boy Scouts stating that they would file a lawsuit against any public school that charters a Boy Scout troop. The Boy Scouts, therefore, removed their charters from thousands of public schools–their third largest source of support, representing over 350,000 Boy Scouts–to spare the schools from the promised legal turmoil and expense. The ACLU also successfully utilized the same threat against the Department of Defense.

The Boy Scouts are also being evicted from their historic Philadelphia headquarters because of their refusal to allow homosexuals as scoutmasters. The building in which they meet was actually built and paid for by the Boy Scouts. In 1928, the Boy Scouts donated the building to the city of Philadelphia free of charge with the stipulation that the Boy Scouts could use the facility in perpetuity by paying a nominal $1 per year lease. In 2007, city solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. (who is openly homosexual) mounted a campaign to have the Boy Scouts evicted from the building. On May 31, 2007, the city of Philadelphia voted to end the lease. They now demand that the Boy Scouts either change their policy toward homosexuals or pay $200,000 per year for the use of the building–a building that was built and paid for by the Scouts themselves and for which they have a lease which allows them to use the building in perpetuity. The city demanded that the Boy Scouts leave the building by May 31, 2008. The Boy Scouts filed suit to stop the eviction. The matter is now in court.

Not all assaults on the Boy Scouts have been insults, fines, or evictions. One prominent case dealt with the ability of Boy Scouts to decide who would be their members. In 1990 the New Jersey Boy Scouts removed James Dale from his position as Scoutmaster. Dale had publicly proclaimed his homosexuality and worked openly as a homosexual rights activist. (Among other things, he was co-President of the Rutgers Lesbian/Gay Alliance.) On July 29, 1992, James Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts. Although a lower court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts in 1995, this decision was overturned on March 2, 1998 by the New Jersey intermediate appellate court–ruling in Dale’s favor. After this decision was appealed by the Boy Scouts, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Dale’s favor on August 4, 1999. The court stated that the New Jersey “public accomodations law abridges no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose”. (Do you remember the judge’s statement in the Scott Brockie case? In that case Heather MacNaughton said, “I have concluded that it is necessary to limit Brockie’s freedom of religion...”)

The case then went to the United States Supreme Court. On June 28, 2000, by a narrow vote of 5 to 4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts. Thus we came within a single vote of having a private organization not being able to limit membership based upon the question of homosexual morality.

In the wake of the James Dale case, dozens of United Way partners discontinued their association with Boy Scouts, causing a loss of at least several hundred thousand–perhaps millions–of dollars in support.

It should be noted that these attacks upon the Boy Scouts are not because the Scouts have changed their policies in the last five years or the last hundred years. They haven’t. But standards of morality have changed in our society.

The cases mentioned here are not an inclusive list. Time and space limits telling of Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, who wrote a pastoral letter to the Roman Catholics in his diocese affirming Roman Catholic doctrine which opposes homosexual acts and same-sex marriage. The result? He was taken before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to answer for his actions. Or of Dianne Haskett, who served as mayor of London, Ontario. As mayor she was charged with discriminatory conduct and fined $5,000 because she refused to proclaim a Gay Pride weekend. (Her legal costs totaled more than $70,000.) Or of the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, Kentucky, which, because of a judicial ruling, was denied an appropriation of at least eleven million dollars for a pharmacy school, because, as a conservative Baptist college, its rules proscribing the moral conduct of its students (which also include prohibitions against pre-marital sex for heterosexuals) were deemed to be discriminatory. Even if the ruling had allowed the funding, the diplomas may have been valueless since the only association authorized to provide accreditation for American pharmacy schools also prohibits its members from discriminating based upon sexual orientation. Or of Scott Savage, a librarian at Ohio State University at Mansfield, who made the mistake of adding four conservative best-sellers (such as “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelion and “It Takes a Family” by Rick Santorum) to a suggested reading list. The result? Three teachers, supported by a vote of the entire faculty, filed sexual harassment charges against him (for a book recommendation!), saying that the suggested books made them feel unsafe. Or of Dr. Laura Schlesinger, whose television program was eventually removed from Canadian airwaves after the Canadian Standards Council decided in 2000 that the expressing of her conservative moral views regarding homosexuality constituted a “violation of the human rights provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics.” Or of Robert Smith, who was fired from his position on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority by the governor of Maryland after Smith was asked on a talk show about his views on homosexuality. Smith’s simple but honest answer to the unsolicited question was: “Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant. I’m a Roman Catholic.” I will not elaborate about Cardinal Gustaaf Joos, or Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, or students at Duquesne and Gonzaga, or Ted and Link Byfield, or Peter Weessies, or Christian Trinity Western University, or King’s University College, or the Christian Legal Society at UC-Hastings, or various members of the Irish clergy, or Frank Wagner, or Free Dominion news forum, or Glenn Tomlinson, or the Mennonite Camp Arnes, or Craig Chandler, or Lynette Burrows, or Catholic Insight magazine, or Ron Gray, or Joe and Helen Roberts, or the removal of the Staten Island billboards, or Peter Forster, or Ruth Malhotra, or the University of Birmingham’s Christian Union, or the New Zealand organization Living Word, or Every Nation Campus Ministries, or David Clutterbuck, or the students at Oakmont High School, or Ken Campbell, or Robert Jason, or Christian Horizons, or the Mark Hansen Six, or Mayor Brad Woodside, or Police Chief Ernie Reiner, or Mayor Bob Morrow, or Ulf Ekman, or the British group Christian Voice, or Catholic Charities of Boston, or Donna Reddick, or Cheryl Clark, or Michael Marcavage, or Albert A. Buonanno, or Richard Peterson, or Rolf Szabo, or Kenneth P. Gee, or Annie Coffey-Montes, or Focus on the Family Canada, or Harry Hammond, or Michael Coren, or Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, or The Salvation Army, or Marcos Zapata, or Bishop Bernardo Álvarez, or Life Productions, or Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, or Dary Byczek, or Jim Grove or numerous others whose stories could be told. Time and space hinders.

Time and space must also hinder the major media outlets, since this side of the coin is rarely seen, although they frequently find time and space for the cult-like, hate-filled Phelps clan from Topeka, Kansas, apparently attempting to make them representative of all those who oppose the homosexual agenda.

In Canada, civil marriage commissioners are losing their jobs for refusing to perform homosexual marriages, and the same has also occurred in Massachusetts. People are now calling for the revoking of the charitable status of churches in Canada that refuse to perform homosexual marriages.

Hate crimes legislation similar to what exists in Canada and Sweden–laws which invited the prosecution of people such as Stephen Boissoin, Ĺke Green, and many others--is verging on becoming federal law in the United States. Such legislation has passed one house of Congress or the other in recent years (e.g., the Senate approved such a bill in 2004), but not until last year did it pass both houses. The bill would add actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity to the list of protected classes. Although approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it was later dropped from a defense spending bill by the Senate. Prospects for its passage (and the related ENDA bill) grow with each passing year. Although its advocates say that it will not limit free speech, its opponents contend otherwise. An amendment to safeguard those who hold religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality has been voted down. Here is a conversation in Congress regarding such an amendment as reported by lifesitenews.com:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”

People are typically not all that moved or alarmed by having an isolated case or two in which ordinary citizens suffer at the hands of the homosexual agenda. However, perhaps having seen a portion of the roll call of those on the front line will help to put things in proper perspective. The promotion of the homosexual agenda and the attacks upon traditional values have become an inexorable streamroller within our culture in recent years.

Forty-seven years ago, homosexual behavior was not legally endorsed anywhere in the United States. Five years ago, it was still illegal in thirteen states. Now, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it is legal in all fifty states.

Nineteen years ago, homosexual civil unions were not legal anywhere in the world. Eight years ago, homosexual civil unions were not permitted anywhere in the U.S.

Seven years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the world. Five years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the United States–nor anywhere else in the world outside of the Netherlands.

Five years ago, there were no openly homosexual bishops sanctioned by mainline churches in the United States. Three years ago, even the European Union wouldn’t have threatened to revoke a country’s membership, as they threatened to do with Poland, because of their laws against homosexual behavior. Until recently, no major American industrial giant like Ford Motor Company would donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to sponsor homosexual causes. Until recently no one would have thought that there would be a camp limited to homosexual teenagers that was designed to encouraged them to become homosexual activists, as is the case with the Triangle Foundation’s Detroit-area camp. Until recently no head of a major denomination would have said that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, as Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church recently did. Until recently no one would have imagined that a school district would require posters even in kindergarten and first grade classrooms, as was done by the San Leandro, California school district, that highlight the words “lesbian”, “gay”, “bisexual”, “transgender”, and “questioning”.

We need to understand that the events going on in our world are part of an orchestrated effort to overthrow the practice, belief, and expressing of traditional values. Those who object are increasingly being marginalized or fined or fired or imprisoned.

If you do not speak out now, you will not be allowed to speak out later. Or perhaps you will be allowed to speak, but not allowed to be a schoolteacher in British Columbia, or a bishop in Alberta, or a free person in Sweden, or a mayor in London, Ontario, or a printer in Toronto, or a nurse in Regina, or a radio host in Canada, or own a bed and breakfast on Prince Edward Island, or be an employee of a major company or organization such as Allstate or the Red Cross or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the United States, or keep your kindergarten children from being indoctrinated with pro-homosexual values in schools in Massachusetts, or speak out publicly in Philadelphia, or be a photographer in New Mexico, or put Bible verses on a bumper sticker in Regina, Saskatchewan. And the list goes on.

And perhaps speaking out won’t cost you thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines or legal fees. Perhaps. Or perhaps your actions will merely cost you a few hundred dollars...or more than $6,600...or $170,000...or $1.2 million...or more.

You see, the Chris Kempling case wasn’t so incredible after all.

In many places it is legal for a homosexual activist to state their opinion publicly, but illegal for a conservative Christian to do so. In Canada, and in many places in America, it is illegal to fire someone for living a homosexual lifestyle, but it is legal to fire someone for saying that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong.

It needs to be understood that even the things that I have said today would, in many places around the world, result in the loss of one’s job...or in severe fines...or in arrest. If you don’t already understand...know assuredly that some of those places are now within our own country. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, here in the shadow of the hills of east Tennessee, the words of one of the characters in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf the wizard said, “We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting dark.”

Or, in the words of Ori and Legolas, two other Tolkien characters, “They are coming.”

Originally presented as a speech at an event called A Gathering of LDotters in Townsend, Tennessee on June 14, 2008.

Note: Although multitudes (probably thousands) of sources were consulted in preparing this document, special notice should be given to LifeSiteNews. Their work has been invaluable and especially helpful. Agape Press (now OneNewsNow) was also a very useful resource.

Author: Randy Winstead has worked as a botanist, wetland biologist, college instructor, and campus minister. He is a frequent poster at the internet news forum Lucianne.com.